[Spice-devel] Announcing spice 0.9.0

[John A. Sullivan III]

On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 02:34 +0300, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 06:16:35PM -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 23:41 +0300, Alon Levy wrote:
> > > <snip>> > I don't think there is *that* much difference between 0.8 and 0.9 - if you
> > > > > want to see the improvement Christophe did to the mjpeg encoding, sure, but
> > > > > don't expect it to fix the 1:5 ratio you noticed. I haven't tried to
> > > > > reproduce that ratio yet - so I don't know if it is your environment or
> > > > > just a shortage of spice, but the bottom line is it won't be fixed by
> > > > > switching to 0.9
> > > > > 
> > > > > > it safe to use the 0.8 source rpms and rebuild with new source? If not,
> > > > > > we'll simply compile from source and try to keep it all straight.
> > > > > > Thanks - John
> > > > > > 
> > > > > It shoud work by just dropping in the 0.9 source and changing the version
> > > > > in the spec, or you can build from source.
> > > > > 
> > > > We'll give it a whirl and I'll rebuild the RPMs.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm eager to see the video difference as video is one of the big drivers
> > > > of our interest in SPICE.  To reap the benefits, do both sides of the
> > > > connection need to be using libjpeg-turbo, e.g., I don't think that's an
> > > > easy option on Squeeze right now.  Thanks - John
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > It is better to have turbo-jpeg on both ends, but it's independent - decoding
> > > is probably faster with it too, but this change is just to the encoder. I think
> > > spicy already uses turbo-jpeg, not sure about spicec.
> > > 
> > Hmmm . . . does that mean spicy has statically linked libjpeg-turbo?
> > Again, I ask because of Debian and I assume that is important because we
> > are striving for a more than just RedHat solution.  I'm not an expert at
> > all but it seems like Debian is still struggling with libjpeg6.2 versus
> > libjpeg8.  I think libjpeg-turbo is either only in unstable or
> > experimental.  If libjpeg-turbo is not available in the distribution,
> > will spicy as a client still be able to use it?
> > 
> > It's important to us because most of our servers are RedHat based but
> > the desktops are Debian.  We contemplated Fedora desktops but KDE4 is a
> > showstopper.  We are using Trinity with Debian Squeeze.  Thanks - John
> > 
> Just out of curiosity - you mean KDE4 doesn't run on fedora or it does? also,
> there are many window managers out there. Granted Debian has many more
> packages then Fedora, but I'd be surprised if you settled on one that isn't
> in both.
> 
Not to stray too far from the topic but we had settled on KDE3 for our
clients willing to migrate from Windows desktops.  KDE4 seems to be much
more taxing for remote presentation and, even if we set it up to behave
more like KDE3, we have other reservations.  We like many of the KDE4
concepts but are very concerned about the implementation and the
sometimes cavalier attitude of the development team to practical
production needs.

Thus we latched onto the Trinity project as the successor to KDE3 and
even sponsored a small part of its development.  As far as I know, it is
not yet available on Fedora although I think it is in process.  I would
think it might be of interest to RedHat as I would assume Trinity will
be a little more WAN friendly to SPICE than KDE4.  Of course, that's a
much smaller market than Windows desktops but we're trying (within the
framework of the realistic, practical needs of our clients!).  Thanks -
John